1984 (3) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Jaipur Bench (hereinafter referred to as " the Tribunal "), under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of interest under s. 139(1)(iii) of the Act ? In respect of the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ged only if the assessee has applied for extension of time and the ITO grants such extension. It was submitted on behalf of the assessee that as the assessee had not applied for extension of time for filing the return, interest could not be charged under s. 139(1)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal, however, placed reliance on the decision of this court in Daljit Singh Co. v. Union of India (D. B. Ci .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... urolia, on the other hand, has submitted that the view taken by this court in Daljit Singh Co. v. Union of India finds support from the following decisions: 1. Biswanath Ghosh v. ITO [1974] 95 ITR 372 (Orissa). 2 Ganesh Das Sreeram v. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 19 (Gauhati). 3. Indian Telephone Industries Co-operative Society Ltd. v. ITO [1972] 86 ITR 566 (Kar). 4. Chhotalal Co. v. ITO [1976] 105 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X